State ex rel. Waldick v. Howard, 2012 Ohio 404

State of Ohio seeks nuisance abatement and abatement order against EZ Check Market, but trial court granted nuisance finding yet denied abatement.
Evidence showed multiple drug transactions and trafficking linked to market vicinity and its residential-adjacent area over several years.
A 2007 search of the market uncovered crack cocaine, marijuana, razor blade with residue, and firearms; defendants’ relatives were later convicted of drug offenses.
Notice letters in 2007 and 2008 informed the Howards that the market was a nuisance and subject to abatement; subsequent litigation followed.
A 2010 partial summary judgment held the market was a nuisance; a 2011 bench trial addressed whether the Howards knowingly acquiesced to perpetuation of the nuisance; the abatement order was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s denial of abatement was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Waldick argues acquiescence as matter of law due to reputation evidence	Howards contend they did not acquiesce and took steps to reduce activity	Not against the manifest weight; sufficient evidence showed no acquiescence

Cincinnati ex rel. Cosgrove v. Grogan, 141 Ohio App.3d 733 (1st Dist. 2001) (weight-of-the-evidence standard for reviewing nuisance abatement)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio St. 1978) (substantial evidence standard; review of evidentiary sufficiency)
State ex rel. Pizza v. Rezcallah, 702 N.E.2d 81 (Ohio Supreme 1998) (clear and convincing burden; rebuttable presumptions in nuisance cases)
State ex rel. Pizza v. Carter, 622 N.E.2d 1194 (C.P. 1993) (categories of evidence to prove knowledge/acquiescence create presumptions)
Grogan v. Cosgrove, 141 Ohio App.3d 733 (1st Dist. 2001) (application of evidentiary standards in nuisance cases)